Great American Outdoors Act

[Danson In The Desert]

Surprised this hasn't been posted on here yet.
It looks like great news to me.

Portman, Bipartisan Colleagues Introduce the Great American Outdoors Act

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Steve Daines (R-MT), Mark Warner (D-VA), Angus King (I-ME), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and Richard Burr (R-NC) today introduced S. 3422, the Great American Outdoors Act – landmark legislation to address the...

www.portman.senate.gov

 

[Aperventure]

This is great news, looks solid. Thanks for sharing

 

[SAJ-99]

The sales pitch we can all agree would be great. I hope they didn’t try to hide anything in the details, like politicians of all stripes like to do.

 

[JDH]

Does anybody know where the funding will come from to pay for this? I'm working to come up with a response to my senator who said the following:
"However, I was elected to the Senate partly due to my concern over our national debt and annual deficits. My concerns about spending have driven me to vote against every defense bill as a Senator, as I believe we need to restrain federal spending, even in areas that are conservative priorities. Unfortunately, S. 3422 is not paid for, and will increase federal debt by over $15 billion, thus, I cannot support it."

 

[Slam]

From the news article:

Portman introduced the bipartisan Restore Our Parks Act with Senators Warner, Alexander, and King to establish the National Park Service Legacy Restoration Fund to reduce the maintenance backlog by allocating half of the existing unobligated revenues the government receives from on and offshore energy development up to $1.3 billion per year for the next five years.

 

[1_pointer]

Does anybody know where the funding will come from to pay for this? I'm working to come up with a response to my senator who said the following:
"However, I was elected to the Senate partly due to my concern over our national debt and annual deficits. My concerns about spending have driven me to vote against every defense bill as a Senator, as I believe we need to restrain federal spending, even in areas that are conservative priorities. Unfortunately, S. 3422 is not paid for, and will increase federal debt by over $15 billion, thus, I cannot support it."

Braun?

 

[JDH]

Braun?

Yep. I feel like he's voted no on other bills that were going to pass just so he could say he did.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Does anybody know where the funding will come from to pay for this? I'm working to come up with a response to my senator who said the following:
"However, I was elected to the Senate partly due to my concern over our national debt and annual deficits. My concerns about spending have driven me to vote against every defense bill as a Senator, as I believe we need to restrain federal spending, even in areas that are conservative priorities. Unfortunately, S. 3422 is not paid for, and will increase federal debt by over $15 billion, thus, I cannot support it."

LWCF is piad for. It uses off-shore leasing revenue, not general tax dollars. That funding currently gets siphoned off from LWCF, which was originally established in 1965. One could argue that LWCF was the bastard step-child whom most didn't mind short-changing in favor of other projects.

The National Parks maintenance backlog is a direct result of declining budget for the National Parks. This is vital funding that not only helps ensure better infrastructure at Natonal Parks, but increased revenue for satellite communities that rely on functioning parks w/ amenities to draw in their customers - tourists. WIthout this funding, we're likely to see more closures of parks to protect resources, leading to lower tourist numbers and less revenue for those communities at risk.

As far as the bill goes, it's fine. It's good, and it's about 5 years past due. While congress has been dithering on a variety of other issues, and while people like Steve Daines were offering amendments to crater LWCF functionality in 2015, we had to take 5 years to put immense pressure on the majority party to get to this point. They arrived here after realizing they're about to be swept out of power, so while this is an election year ploy to downgrade their electoral defeat, I'll take it. I'm not gonna look this gift horse in the mouth. Having the President's support after his entire tenure has been about eliminating the programs within this bill, and shifting resources away from conservation towards development & elimination of protected acres, it's nice to see that conservation is once again a major factor in politicians' lives and that both parties recognize the need to do something active and profound.

 

[1_pointer]

Yep. I feel like he's voted no on other bills that were going to pass just so he could say he did.

Figured, judging from the response. Kinda ironic considering the programs he's used in the past...

 

[JDH]

I should say I'm not completely ignorant of the situation, I understand how the LWCF works. If I'm reading the 2nd paragraph in the article is sounds like they are expanding the Restore our Parks Act, without allocating more funding. Or is that incorrect? I would love nothing more than to respond to him and tell him 100%b of the funding would come from the LWCF.

 

[JDH]

I hate it when they send responses that leave out information to suit their viewpoint. One response I received on a different subject mentioned a study to tell me how it was better for federal land to be private due to helping unemployment. I was able to look up the study and counter his point by showing that the unemployment numbers were due to the early retirement of males in the specific industries he mentioned.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I should say I'm not completely ignorant of the situation, I understand how the LWCF works. If I'm reading the 2nd paragraph in the article is sounds like they are expanding the Restore our Parks Act, without allocating more funding. Or is that incorrect? I would love nothing more than to respond to him and tell him 100%b of the funding would come from the LWCF.

Last paragraph in the release:

NOTE:

The Restore Our Parks Act would establish the “National Park Service Legacy Restoration Fund” to reduce the maintenance backlog by allocating existing revenues the government receives from on and offshore energy development. This funding would come from 50 percent of all revenues that are not otherwise allocated and deposited into the General Treasury not to exceed $1.3 billion each year for the next five years.

It's the same revenue stream as LWCF, so it is actually paid for. With full funding of LWCF ($900 million per year), I'd need to see the revenue stream to know if this is going to get shortchanged but it's a much better attempt than previous GOP efforts to raid LCF funding instead of setting up a separate fund.